> what I'm saying martin is that you have made it abundantly
> clear that you have a strong personal belief attached to your
> religious choice that he did exist in exactly the form claimed
> by the bible so any evidence you supply will be worthless for
> the case of this discussion.
And you still completely miss the target here again
> I finally realised this of course after you claimed that the
> Jewish dictionary was a fundementalist publication because it
> contradicted something commonly believed by christians.
and you continues. since the jewish dictionary is not are aware,
of the origin of the name Moses and actually I don't care what are contradicted by christians, jews, muslims, hindues or Buddist. I'm more interested in the many references across time and places which give some informations that piece by piece gives us a picture you will not find in the flimsy bible without the informations Ove von Spaeth has collected in his research, which I admit appeal to my historical sense in me as the ancient mythology where some myth actually was human as described. so if Moses was as you say a literal political agenda, then hes the oldest political agenda that I know of even how
much scholars want to claim him what ever they want.
> see any evidence you submit will be so coloured by your
> religious point of view to be worthless. You couldn't accept a
> simple dictionary defintion the last time so really this isn't
> a discussion about the validity of your faith but about the
> solid evidence that would prove Moses a reality,
> and lets face it, if there were any evidence no matter how
> flimsy then Simcha Jacobi would have cashed in on it by now.
Then Simcha Jacobi should get in touch with Ove
and the dictionary should one day accept that Moses is an egyptian name.